In less than 50 years, artificial intelligence will be able to beat humans at all of their own tasks, according to a new study.

And, the first hints of this shift will become apparent much sooner.

Within the next ten years alone, the researchers found AI will outperform humans in language translation, truck driving, and even writing high-school essays – and, they say machines could be writing bestselling books by 2049.

In less than 50 years, artificial intelligence will be able to beat humans at all of their own tasks, according to a new study. And, the first hints of this shift will become apparent much sooner.

In a new study, researchers from Oxford University’s Future of Humanity Institute, Yale University, and AI Impacts surveyed 352 machine learning experts to forecast the progress of AI in the next few decades.

The experts were asked about the timing of specific capabilities and occupations, as well as their predictions on when AI will become superior over humans in all tasks – and what the social implications of this might be.

The researchers predicted that machines will be better than humans at translating languages by 2024, writing high-school essays by 2026, driving a truck by 2027, and working in retail by 2031.

If this happens, the only jobs for humans will be as acts or exhibits in circuses or zoos for robots. No more doctors, lawyers, plumbers, or writers (huh!?). Bleak.

In the future reality heit Ring Master-Bot may be coming at her with a chair and a whip. Daily Mail.

I hate to say none of the tragedy out of Dallas yesterday surprised me but it did not. Almost none of it. The murders of the police were predictable. The government is out of control. The people, some awake, some asleep, some sleep-walking, don’t have much control themselves. It’s a bad mixture. It could be much worse though it’s bad enough as is.

What did surprise me, slightly, was how the police killed shooter Micah Johnson. There was a long standoff and shootout. Unable to get a clear shot at him as he hid in a parking garage, the police used a robot to get a bomb close to Johnson. They detonated it, killing him and ending the situation. A robot. With a bomb.

The Dallas bombing yesterday was, if anything, more proportionate. The Philly bomb ended a days old siege which perhaps could have been waited out. In Dallas the police acted against an active shooter who posed an immediate threat. Their bomb only killed him.

Some are asking, “should the police be allowed to use bombs?” The short, legal answer is “yes”. I reluctantly concur with the expert consensus with qualification. The police, like anyone else, can legally kill anyone who poses an immediate threat of lethal or grievous danger. If they’re going to be killed, then does it matter if it is by bullet or by bomb?

I am not a fan of the modern, militarized police. Regardless of what I think, they are armed with military weapons. I will leave that angle alone for now. At any rate, in the old days, if the police could not handle a situation, they called in the state militia with heavy weapons – like bombs. And, I’m not going into due process issues either. I am assuming, for column’s sake, the justification for lethal force was there.

Another qualification I would add is that a destructive weapon, like a bomb, should only be used as a last resort and only if collateral damage is mitigated. It appears the damage mitigation box can be checked and I don’t have enough information on the last resort. I’ll give that benefit of the doubt to the police here.

Again, out of all of this it was the robot with the bomb that got my attention. The bomb was probably a Claymore mine or other anti-personnel device. In Philly, 1985, they used a powerful incendiary bomb. The robot used yesterday is more of a remote-controlled vehicle; it’s a machine, a tool. In 1985 they used a helicopter, another machine or tool.

The difference, as I see it, is the rapid advancements in robotics and artificial intelligence. Helicopters aren’t getting smarter, robots are.

The Dallas machine was 100% under operator control. However, other government agencies are spending a ton of your money to develop autonomous robots – machines that are programmed to act on their own. Industry is designing robots to control other robots.

Here we delve into science-fiction horror that is rapidly becoming reality. How long until there are autonomous robots with bombs or other weapons? What happens if they adapt to or against their programming and start acting completely on their own? What if they decide we, the humans, are the enemy? With the way technology is changing, we probably don’t have that long before we start getting answers.

I got this fictional Terminator picture from a story about the real thing.

If race relations are bad now, what about when (if, rather, I pray) it’s the human race versus the robots? They’re already taking our jobs. At some point could they see us as obsolete? Adversaries? We just might want to hypothesize these questions and possible answers before the machines do.

**NOTE** This piece was written under the influence of pain killers and prescription strength muscle relaxers. I really really hope it makes sense to you, my beloved readers. ***

You, by now, have surely heard of Dylan Roof. A drug-addled, psychotic, racist piece of walking, talking sh*t in a form resembling man, Mr. Roof has done America a tremendous service in spite of his initial nefarious designs.

Earlier this week I had intended to write something about a different story out of South Georgia. It also involved violence against the innocent although it was dispensed by a gang or group of deranged savages – the police. Let me briefly touch on that story and how it relates to Dylan’s rampage.

Last year David Hooks and his wife, Teresa, were the victims of a burglary which resulted in the theft of their family vehicle. Naturally, perhaps unwisely, they reported the crime to police. The police, ever slow to solve property crimes, solved this one fast. They apprehended the suspect and interviewed him. Being a weasel, he said the drugs in his possession were found in the Hook’s stolen vehicle. The police, being either incompetent or gullible, believed the thief and pursued a warrant against the Hooks.

During the night of September 24, 2014 the cops, attired in SWAT costumes, executed a search warrant at the Hooks residents. Teresa, fearing the burglar(s) had returned called for David’s help. David emerged with a shotgun and was promptly shot dead by the heavily armed police. Of course, no drugs or other illegal items were found during the specious search.

Business as usual, the police in Dublin are standing behind their actions. No criminal charges will flow from this travesty of “justice.” The Hook family will receive a settlement in their civil suit but this will not bring David back from the dead nor actively deter the police from future murders. Is your War on Drugs really worth this? This scenario unfolds every day.

What caught my eye about this story was the support generated for the Hook family. The hooks are white. During a courthouse rally over this injustice many black civil rights activists from Atlanta showed up in support and outrage. A disciple of the late Josea Williams stated that now white people would be brought into the struggle against police injustice. The police shoot to death innocent people of all races almost every day. It is an epidemic which is largely ignored outside of the black community, blacks being, historically, the primary victims of this “war.”

I rejoiced in that perhaps people would wake up and unite. Then Dylan Roof came along.

I have been the white face in a “black” church before. I have never experienced the feeling of being the “white face” but rather a sensation of love and welcome as a brother of Christ. I find black churches to be largely more Christian and less country club than many of their “white” counterparts. Dylan no doubt experienced the same treatment.

Despite his kind, Christian treatment Dylan, without any provocation, shot and murdered nine church members – members who had just welcomed him with open arms. Dylan is a white racist who hates blacks for no reason.

In his “manifesto” Dylan declared, “N****rs are stupid and violent…. Black people view everything through a racial lense [sic].” To solve this problem Dylan acted in the most stupid and violent manner possible against the most helpless and decent people he could find.

You know what happened at the AME church. You know about the manhunt and Dylan’s capture. You have intense feelings about this crime as do I. Initially I called for Dylan’s execution. This came from my heart in spite of my distrust of the American legal system in general and the death penalty specifically. Thus was the force of emotion.

I wrote on a friend’s Facebook posting the comment: “Hang. Him. High.” I then remembered what I had written about the death penalty in South Carolina only a short time before: “Gandalf answered [Frodo] masterfully: ‘Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.’”

My own inconsistency here illustrates several points. The State, having surrendered its legitimacy, should never be in the position of deciding whether anyone lives or dies. Christians should not seek nor rejoice in the execution of any criminal. Dylan, like so many modern mass murderers, was under the influence of psychotic drugs initially developed by the CIA in an effort to effect mass mind control (MK Ultra).

Many have been the vacuous debates about the motives and influences behind these murders. President Obama roundaboutly blames guns in society. Guns rights folks blame our debased criminal society. Dylan’s use of and convictions for legal and illegal drugs are mentioned. Suspicious people like me see a government angle to the story. In the end, Dylan Roof did this and bears responsibility. Despite my rationalization and research I still (sadly) stand by my knee-jerk statement of “Hang him.” God help me, Dylan and everybody else.

SSRI drugs may play a part in the majority of modern American mass murders. However, the forgiveness and togetherness brought about by Dylan Roof are unprecedented.

While writing this story I interviewed two black gentlemen on their thoughts. Tito, a cigar brother, said, “Where we are as a country is sad.” “In God’s house to commit those crimes is sad.”

Tito’s visiting friend, Gerard Ousely, of Durham, N.C. said: “Our country has been polarized. In a sad state of affairs, we’re letting the minority run the majority.” He went on: “Nine people got killed behind hatred.” “People die because of poor police tactics, racism, hatred, it’s just ridiculous.” “We the majority need to get behind what’s right.”

The time has come to stand together against evil, whether from the State or from each other. Join the majority, join what is right.

Not too long ago I wrote about my experiences with the American Jury system in the 21st Century. It is broken. End of story. Any acquittal you read about is an anomaly – a celebration of truth and luck in a world gone wrong. Juries are no longer the last check against tyranny they were intended to be in ancient Rome or Athens.

Most people plead guilty to criminal offenses. Most of the rest elect to the convicted (not just tried) by a state appointed and employed Judge. The small few who make it before a jury – not of their peers – are usually found guilty. Everything goes the state’s way. Many celebrate this fact. I do not. We were supposed to have due process and equality under the law. This is especially important to the little person facing the endless resources of the government. It is also, now, a fiction. We have none of it. Just convictions.

(Temple of doom. Google.)

The defendant in the Boston Bombing trial, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, was convicted and sentenced to death. His was one of the oddest trials I have ever heard of. It lacked even the plausible credibility of some Soviet-era show trials. In June Tsarnaev learns whether the judge will condemn him to die. He surely will be executed.

If, indeed, he did commit the alleged terror attack, Tsarnaev deserves to die. However, as I have noted before, there is amble evidence to suggest a government link to the plot. If the government is involved in any way, there is usually a plot participation. This might not excuse Tsarvaev but it would implicate others. It won’t though. There was absolutely no mention or murmur of this in court on Tsarnaev’s account. Alarmingly, there was no murmur at all from the defendant. There was no defense whatsoever.

In a way the defense strategy made some sense. They knew, as do I, there is no hope for honest truth or justice in an American court. Accordingly, they adopted an approach which plead Tsarnaev guilty while attempting to shift the blame to the defendant’s dead brother. The ultimate attempt was not to evade a conviction (a given) but, rather, to avoid the death penalty. The approach did not work.

The government opened with a sympathetic case – no-one likes terror attacks on innocent people. The defense then opened by acknowledging the crime and the defendant’s participation therein. “Yeah, he did it. But…” They closed the same way.

Then, the government called witnesses. These were victims who had survived the attack. They told the jury and court of their terrible injuries. Terrible as they are, they do not establish, at all, any criminal culpability. No mind – Tsarnaev had already admitted guilt. In most cases these statements of victims come at the very end of the trial – after guilt has been adjudicated. They are usually used to determine what level of punishment is deserved of the convicted. This case saw all phases conveniently wrapped into one show. No challenge or examination at all was conducted on behalf of the accused.

I, as a defense attorney, could have lessened the blow of these witnesses but asking them if they had ever seen (in person) my client before. None of them had. They had no way to link Tsarnaev to the crime scene.

That tenuous link came from a video and pictorial collage presented by the government. Cameras are everywhere these days and there were numerous shots of the Tsarnaev brothers at the Marathon. Nothing showed them setting off or planting the bombs. Then again, the defendant had already admitted his guilt.

No challenge came to this presentation. There was equal evidence of former government employees – current “security” contractors at the event – with the same backpacks and in the same places as the accused. The difference was that several (not presented) photos showed the brothers leaving with laden backpacks while the agents walk away unencumbered. Nevermind. Guilt admitted, remember.

The government presented weak findings as to how the alleged bombs were made. A good munitions expert could have dissected these as ridiculous. None did. All evidence was submitted without protest. There was then the matter of an alleged admission written on the walls of a hideout boat. No objections.

Given what they were presented with the jury rightly found the defendant guilty. He lost his gamble as to the jury’s recommendation of death. That should have come as no surprise. To the open-eyed and open-minded it should come as an alarm as to where the system has settled.

This is no system in which to place any faith of fairness. The prosecution will get whatever it seeks in most cases. Nothing will change. There are efforts to reform the game but it is too far gone. There is no public support for such efforts. Thus, any alternative seems logical, if it be at all feasible.

Before I go further let me state that everyone is entitled to a defense at trial in cases of alleged criminal offense. Ages ago several British soldiers were tried and acquitted in the Boston Massacre. Their attorney believed in justice, no matter how unpopular the accused. His name was John Adams. You may have heard of him, he served as our second President.

There is an older, if more archaic, alternative to the jury system in criminal or civil cases. You have never heard of it. No American lawyers understand it nor would they encourage it. The Courts will surely be averse to it though it has never been stricken from the codified law (like that matters anymore). No law school will teach it. No agent of the state would wish to face it. No right-minded person would assert the alternative. But, it is there.

There is (or was) a thing called Trial by Combat.

Trial by combat (also wager of battle, trial by battle or judicial duel) was a method of Germanic law to settle accusations in the absence of witnesses or a confession in which two parties in dispute fought in single combat; the winner of the fight was proclaimed to be right. In essence, it was a judicially sanctioned duel. It remained in use throughout the European Middle Ages, gradually disappearing in the course of the 16th century.

Wikipedia says this was a Germanic legal tradition, which is true. However, the custom was known to many other ancient cultures. Also, it continued into the somewhat modern age.

The defense continued in regular practice into the Seventeenth and even Eighteenth Centuries. The accused or defendant would assert or demand his right. The prosecutor or plaintiff or a chosen champion would then join the accused in singular combat. This was to the death or to a submission – usually death. I cannot imagine too many district attorneys, police officers, or offended ex-wives going along, willingly, with such strategy. Then again, I cannot see most fat, lazy Americans demanding such a right let alone conducting such as trial.

In 1774 an attempt was made in Parliament, partly in response to the Boston Tea Party, to abolish the practice. This and all other reform efforts failed. No bill or law has ever rescinded the ancient right. The right was in place, part of the English Common Law, when the American colonies declared independence from the King. Thus, the right remained available to Americans. Mostly, such spectacles took form in gentlemanly duels – outside of the courts. Alexander Hamilton participated in one of these with fatal consequences.

Still, no state or Congress has ever formally repealed the practice. The courts have not definitively ruled on it either. This is the case in old England as well as in America.

As recently as 2002 a demand for trial by combat was made in Britain. In Suffolk a man made the demand as his defense in an administrative hearing concerning the local DMV. The magistrates in charge, deeming, him deranged at best, ignored him and fined him a small sum for failing to register (or de-register) his motorcycle. No appeal was made.

You would likely never assert this right as a defense or alternative course of trial. Nor would I. However, if facing severe criminal charges and punishment, trial by combat might mean the difference between prison and a mental hospital. Which seems better to you?

If, though, you should succeed in joining a wager of arms, you may count yourself among the fortunate, even mythical, few. In a federal criminal matter you may consider yourself Fingolfin doing battle with Melkor himself. May the honor and victory be yours.

The police are supposed to keep us safe from harm. Government was allegedly instituted solely to protect our rights, integrity and freedom (all lies). If this was true then Clover would be correct in his oft stated mantra, “if you ain’t doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about.”

I don’t believe that. I have been in the system and around it. Even now I can smell its faint odor of maliciousness. Yuck!

A long time ago I penned a piece called How to Interact with the Police. It was a short guide on protecting oneself from unnecessary prosecution. I have given several speeches on the subject and advice innumerable to individuals over the years. In short, just don’t talk to them. They are necessarily your friends.

Many cops do a great job enforcing the law while preserving individual freedoms. Many others do not. Consult YouTube for countless abuses of police power in America. Half of the videos there concern people who know and assert their rights and successfully escape the dragnet of police corruption. The other half are of innocent people tased, arrested or murdered by the police, usually for nothing.

In most of those latter cases the “suspect” either invited the police into his life or answered their questions. Don’t do either. There is a reason you have the right to remain silent. This is one commonality between police reality shows and police drama shows (both big hits in Amerika). The suspect always breaks down and confesses or says enough for the police to link him to a crime. This happens in real life too. Oftentimes, the only evidence the cops have of any wrongdoing is the defendant’s statement or admission. Don’t do their job for them.

Don’t talk and you’ll likely walk.

As for calling them or inviting them into your home – never do it. Police are like vampires. They usually need permission to enter but once inside they proceed to destroy. Again, don’t help them.

My friends over at LewRockwell.com have posted another grand article on this topic – a video with instructions. Both are worth a review. Know your rights when dealing with the government’s armed agents.

(Don’t be cornered.)

This problem of malicious police exploration can effect anyone, even the police. A friend of mine, an agent with a powerful federal police agency, called me recently. He knows I no longer actively practice criminal defense but he wanted my unofficial opinion anyway. He happens to be a lawyer himself, by the way.

It seems his agency is conducting some internal investigation into something trivial, something which does not involve my friend. However, despite his doing nothing wrong, for some reason he seemed to have something to worry about. Explain that, Clover.

Given his position, his predicament may be a little more nuanced than that of the average citizen. However, knowing very little, all I could advise him was to say nothing. If the matter concerns written records, then the investigators will have them to review. Let the record speak for itself. There is no need to explain or expand anything. Such actions might lead in a direction no rational person could foresee.

I told him, “You know how you guys are.” He seemed a little offended by the statement but sheepishly agreed with me. Investigators are usually on a fishing expedition and not using some concrete science as portrayed on television. They need a suspect (or witness) to tell them something in order to have any chance of prosecuting anyone. Don’t be that someone. Don’t effectively prosecute yourself. Don’t talk.

I hate politicians. In Christian terms it is wrong to hate any man. Politicians are less men than rodents. Thus, I feel exonerated in my feelings. Elections are exercises in stupidity and herd-think. Presidential elections are the worst.

H. L. Mencken summed it up best: “All of the great patriots now engaged in edging and squirming their way toward the Presidency of the Republic run true to form. That is to say, they are all extremely wary, and all more or less palpable frauds. What they want, primarily, is the job; the necessary equipment of inescapable issues, immutable principles and soaring ideals can wait until it becomes more certain which way the mob will be whooping.” Mencken, 1920.

The difference between 1920 and 2015 is that, back then, there were people pretending to be true patriots. At some point they dropped the pretense and proceeded from a desire for pure, unadulterated power. The mob of the American people conveniently ignore this fact. The television is just too entertaining to disagree with. The country sinks lower into the sewer of politics.

A political “party” sounds like a fun time until one realizes the term refers not so much to an event as to a lowest, dumbest degenerates ever assembled under the sun (in truth, like all roaches, they prefer the darkness). Washington warned against them. Mencken ridiculed them. The people, ever plumbing the depths of stupidity, embrace them with jealous fervor. It’s “us” Democrats against “them” Republicans and visa versa. Spare the sane the idiocy of it all.

America is dominated by two predominate political parties. They are nominally referred to as conservatives and liberals. As I see it they both liberally dispense what may be conservatively described as bullshit. The people seem to like it.

Third parties exist, apparently to provide comic relief for the big two. I experimented with what I thought the most honest of these alternatives, the Libertarians. Given the choice I would gladly be ruled by Libertarian politicians than those which currently plague us. However, given power, I am sure they would be corrupted by the mainstream of political discourse. Anarchy is the only happy solution. The people do not like happy solutions. Thus, we are suck with the rats and the roaches.

I’m not entirely sure what this new “secret” trade deal means for America. But, first, it’s secret. That means bad when it comes from Washington. Second, it’s a trade deal. NAFTA and CAFTA, etc. have given American the SHAFTA. I remember being lied to about NAFTA. The dirty manufacturing jobs of old, they said, would give way to a new world of high-paying service jobs which would benefit everyone.

In truth, we have lost the industrial work, pay and all. In exchange we have gained menial minimum wage employment serving hamburgers and such. Robots and immigrants and Indians now do the productive work for real pay. What a change.

I’m sure the new law – sure to happen – will be more of the same. It supposedly grants the President new powers concerning foreign trade. I understand Obama caught wind of a few, final high-paying jobs left in American and is determined to stamp them out. The displaced workers will receive healthcare and cell phones for the bargain – at a cost.

A few Democrats and Rand Paul (son of the mighty Ron Paul), realizing the potential liabilities of robbing the people of their last shot at the American Dream, have stood in the way. Paul filibustered against the deal in the Senate. His speech fell of deaf and stupid ears. The President will get his way, supported by the “conservative” opposition. Trade will be geared ever towards non-American interests. Americans will lose jobs. Reality TV will continue to be popular among the uneducated rabble.

Just remember this when the election rolls around and the Bush/Romney/Christie machine makes the usual patriotic rumblings. Remember it when Hitlary bashes the GOP for being unsupportive of freedom. Blah, blah. Sounds like the same old BS to me.

Remember, if you can, how the various Democratic Congresses and Bill Clinton ran up the national debt, creating new and useless government programs along the way. George Bush, the dimmer, was elected to change all that. He promptly created new agencies and doubled the debt while commencing new wars everywhere. His Excellency, Barack Hussein Osama, was elected to reverse course. Dutifully, he doubled the debt again while continuing and adding to the wars. Now he wants to finish off the trade work began by Clinton and Bush the Vomiter. I see a conspiracy.

The people, bloated by beer and television see nothing. They hear nothing. They say nothing. One of the new fools (or an old fool) foisted upon us by the elite will be the next President. Business will continue as usual.

It never ceases to amaze me how bad most people drive these days. Folks too incompetent to be trusted with a gun or heavy equipment are routinely allowed to operate automobiles which are considerably more dangerous than most weapons of war. Worse, these fools on wheels continually express contempt and disdain for those of us who can actually motor responsibly.

Last week I had a run in (almost literally) with one of these self-righteous clovers. At lunch I innocently drove over to a gas station to refuel the SUV. Ahead of me on the road was a Ford Explorer weaving along about ten miles per hour below the speed limit. A clover to be sure it was.

Clover cruised drunkenly past the gas station and I happily pulled in. I headed towards the second pump so as to make my exit a little easier. Out of the corner of my right eye I noticed the Explorer execute an insane 180 degree turn. Now traveling at the speed limit (though in a parking lot) the Ford screeched to a stop inches from my front bumper.

At this point I noticed a Georgia Tech tag on the intruder’s front bumper. Clovers are generally none too bright and certainly not mechanically inclined. I was perplexed. Then I noticed an ugly woman in the driver’s seat. She was glaring at me with a look of seething hate. I did not know why but I understood that she thought I had invaded “her” pump. Clovers are often possessive without cause. Being a nice guy I smiled and waved to her. Then I backed up to the other pump, allowing her access to “her” pump. She aggressively charged forward – she would have almost pushed me backwards. Oh well, live and let live…

(It’s her road. Move! Google.)

It turns out we both had business inside at the register. I politely waited behind her in line whilst another clover gambled away its disability money on lottery tickets. Ford Tech Cloveress (both ugly and fat) then turned around and looked me up and down. She snorted, “Do you always drive like that?!” Like that. It’s always our fault. No matter what… Yes, I drive like that. I obey the rules of the road. I go where I will without bothering anyone. I politely help even the most obnoxious clovers at the gas station.

With growing irritation I looked at her and said, “You mean in a car? … Yeah.” The angry little hippo then rolled her eyes, stamped a hoof and turned back around. The Gambler scratched away, oblivious to the world. A fly flew by.

Ticking like a bomb, Clover stewed and turned again. She, in grunting fashion, began to lecture me about the perils of not making way for clovers. She explained she worked at a hospital. She stamped another hoof. I listened patiently all the while regretting my decision to leave the house without a pistol. When she stopped to gasp for breath I said, “Thanks for the lesson!” in happiest tone.

Finally, the decrepit numerologist at the counter ran out of luck or money and shuffled out the door. Clover then proceeded to order some gasoline for her mobile battering ram and two packs of cigarettes. Of course, a health care worker/professor would also be a smoker.

A few minutes later, outside, as I paid homage to OPEC, Clover finished up and heaved her impressive girth into the driver’s seat of her weapon of mass annoyance. I looked over and waved. I yelled, smiling, “Have a great day!” She bellowed something about being safe and respectfully and sped off. I assume she slowed to a crawl once on the road. She was then someone else’s problem and peril.

Lord Jesus be praised, I will likely never see this filthy witch again. However, I know that every single day I will meet other, similar moron highwaymen (and women).

Absent the wonders of modern science (thank you, Georgia Tech) these idiots would have long ago succumbed to the terminal effects of Darwinian selection. The moral to be learned from this little story is …. Well …. maybe there is no moral. Nothing to know. Nothing to help.

For you and I, the sane, responsible and courtesy, all we can do is get out of the way and grin and bear it. I rest my case. Or, something….

A long time ago I penned a column called The Great American Flag Flap (I think). It was published somewhere and I think it was about the attempt of various rednecks to anger blacks by flying the Confederate Battle Flag. Maybe I have the parties backwards. It was about nonsense nonetheless.

By the letter of the law (in a book somewhere) this activity is illegal flag desecration. However, the courts have consistently ruled that flag walking (burning, etc.) is free speech protected by the First Amendment. Remember the First Amendment? The Constitution? Rule of law and all that???

I call this post The LESSER American Flag Flap for a reason. The fact is, all things considered, flag trampling does not overly concern me. Some of my friends on Facebook see it otherwise. I have received several requests to condemn these flag protests as a dire threat to everything America allegedly stands for. I understand this but I am still not concerned.

The protest protesters say things like the following. Cleetus from Heehaw Junction, West Virginia says, “that thar flag stands for the men who died for our freedoms!” Lucy Lou from South Hick, Mississippi screams, “theys don’t understand what we has been through as democratic peoples!” Jethro from the upstate of New York avers: “We have a flag for a democrats. The country needs a hero. Yous guys needs to know that the service of the armed forces means more work here. The terrorists are everywhere!” Well said, Jethro.

I disagree with all of these statements though I respect the sentiment behind them all – except Jethro’s – not sure what he’s rambling about.

Here’s my problem. Right now, we have a government hell bent on taxing and regulating our people into the grave. The same government wants to bomb and invade all other peoples on earth. The police run around murdering people SS style. There are no jobs. The children can’t read or eat. We are beset with hoards of illiterate invaders who are determined to obtain every benefit the welfare office offers. Bridges are collapsing. James Brown is dead. Amidst all this, I’m supposed to be upset because some kid somewhere stepped on a piece of fabric? I think not.

I just heard the NFL received a 243 page report on Delate-gate. Tom Brady is in the crosshairs. Mind you, that’s about 243 more pages than we saw about the 2012 death and destruction at the Benghazi Consulate.

It’s worse. The head cover-upper of Benghazi is the Democratic front runner for President in 2016. The leading Republican is a guy named Bush. See a pattern?

The short, pointless war in Libya was designed solely to steal the soverign wealth fund of that country from the long-suffering people of Libya. Some $200 Billion dollars worth of funds were whisked out of Libya and into the hands of a British Bank. No explanation given, no questions asked. The predicament now over that money is how much our criminal friends at Goldman Sachs were entitled to.

Keep your eye on the soft football, folks.

The crown of insanity sits atop the head of our central imperial government. Despite robbing a hundred million Americans every year, the IRS still claims you have rights!

(The Tax Slave Bill of Rights. IRS/Morgoth.)

Ten rights to be exact. Do not confuse these with the defunct Bill of Rights which once accompanied the charter of the Mordor on the Potomac. The tenth “right” brought laughter to my lips: The right to a fair and just tax system! I tell you that no such thing exists in nature or in fiction. The system is place is plain but in no way fair. You simply pay what they tell you or they seize your property and put you in jail. Resist and they will do away with you. Just, huh?

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe a little more respect for flags and footballs is all necessary to cure the ills of the free world. Maybe the sun will rise in the West tomorrow.

The ancient Greeks and Romans had the crazy idea that a man accused of a crime should have the benefit of a public trial. During this ordeal the accusing party (the State) would have the burden of presenting facts, which might establish a crime. The Sword of God crowd would hold these base allegations sufficient to show the underlying criminal act. Our ancient ansestores had other ideas. To them the issue was important enough to warrant consideration by an assembly of impartial justices – a jury.

Of old the jury consisted of various members of the accused’s peers. These were his friends whom knew him well. Why were such pre-disposed men considered impartial, as they were friends of the accused? The idea was that, being men of honor, they would hear the evidence and weigh it in their minds fairly regardless of their relation to the suspect. The fact that they were friends of the accused served as a check against an illicit prosecution.

If “X” was charged with a baseless crime, the jury might collectively judge that, “yes, X is given to bouts of indiscretion, but he would never do something like this. Or, they might find that X, while am affable fellow, might be the sort who would commit such an act as alleged.

The system, while not perfect, worked well. In Rome, such trials were reserved for the upper classes – for men of privilege. Commoners were generally tried by magistrates in shorter, more informal settings. These lessor citizens, being of lessor importance, faced lower burdens of proof and lower levels of punishment. Fair if not. Members of the elite classes, given to higher responsibilities, were treated to high levels of justice. See the defense of Milo (a murder suspect), presented by one Marcus Tullius Cicero, one of the greatest lawyers of antiquity.

This theoretical approach to justice lived on after the 5th Century, being embodied in the Magna Carta, a core right of Englishmen. Thus, the right to a jury came to America.

Today this right is practically non-existent. In modern Amerika a jury trial, while nominally “of one’s peers” is one assured not by your peers. The fact is that very few criminal prosecutions end with a trial. Most of those end with a conviction (the vast majority). This is due to the overwhelming influence of the State and the extremely limited powers of the accused to resist such influence. Every effort is made to ensure that the jury does not, in nay way, know of the accused on a personal level. Further, only those enslaved to the power and suggestion of the accusing State are favored or empaneled. The system has been turned on its head.

Lately, several high-profile trials have made the news; these illustrate my point that there is no right to a fair trial in Amerika.

In 1989 Debra Milke was tried for the murder of her four-year-old son, Christopher. A jury (not of her peers) found her guilty – based solely on the unsupported testimony of a rogue police detective. Despite all indications of innocence the State’s chosen jury found Milke guilty. Thus, for several decades Milke lived in the daily terror of Arizona’s death row – dimmed to die for a crime she did not commit. The guilty parties averred she had nothing to do with the crime. This did not matter to the State until the matter was finally (thankfully) reviewed by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Arizona Supreme Court. See also: Arizona Supreme Court Won’t Allow Retrial of Debra Milke. The prosecutor is, naturally, frustrated by this untimely carriage of justice.

Milke was blessed by higher intervention. Too often the innocent in Amerika are executed for crimes they did not commit. A recent admission shows that the FBI and its crime lab have doomed at least a dozen innocents to death. You have probably never heard of these cases of injustice. So it goes.

Thus do the innocent, robbed of true justice, resort to filing pleadings in courts entitled, “F*ck this Court.” This one warrants reading and consideration.

Debra Milke faced execution because a heartless police officer lied under oath. The officer has since “taken the fifth” so as to avoid prosecution himself for his lies. The citizens of Arizona will pay millions of dollars to right this injustice.

A thousand miles away, in Boston, Dzhokhar Tsarnev has been found guilty of the Boston Marathon Bombings. His was one of the most bizarre trials I have ever heard of. See: Boston Marathon bombing trial: 18 jurors at a glance. The jury was selected based on their indifference toward the accused and their alliance with the state. Tsarnev was not allowed a defense. Rather, he, by way of his “counsel,” admitted guilt but relied on specious allegations of the undue influence of his older brother. His brother and other key witnesses were, conveniently, dead.

The case was tried backwards. The prosecutor first present victims of the bombing and their woeful statements – this usually comes after guilt has been established, during the penalty phase of the trial. Tsarnev’s counsel never even questioned these witnesses. The government then presented an unopposed fable of how Tsarnev constructed and utilized homemade bombs. Again, no challenge came from the “defense.” The lack of direct evidence was deafening.

Having admitted guilt and completely failing to challenge the government’s base allegations it was a given fact Tsarnev would be found guilty. They strategy (if any) of his counsel was that he would attempt to evade the death penalty by way of the supposed undue influence of his dead brother. Charming. Pathetic.

It is entirely likely that this young man played a part in the bombings. Thus, he deserves execution for his crimes. However, I have long suspected he was only a pawn in a false-flag operation designed to test America’s willingness to endure a police state (shelter in place, and all that). We will never know the truth here.

As a former criminal defense attorney I am well aware of the failings of the modern, American jury system of “justice.” Here follows the entire account of one of my trials in federal court, before a jury and bereft of justice. The names have been changed to protect the innocent, the guilty, and me. This story was originally designed for publication (never achieved) in a major news journal:

The Yellow Ribbon Myth: Amerikans Do Not Support The Troops, Nor Justice.

Do you “support the troops?” One sees countless bumper stickers proclaiming such support. I no longer believe the propaganda. When someone says, “I support the troops,” I hear, “I support the government.” This concept was made painfully obvious to me during a criminal trial last fall.

My client, “Donny’s” case, in a U.S. District Court, 2012:

I’m am calling my client “Donny” as I have not yet sought his permission to use his name; I also may be restrained from using certain facts due to Orders of Sealing/Impoundment.

Donny enlisted in the U.S. Army while in high school and completed basic training the summer before his senior year. Donny received an appointment to West Point though, after one year, he stopped his education and entered the Army as an enlisted man. He served with the 375th Ranger company in Afghanistan where he was forced to kill men, women, and children. The experience haunts him daily.

While in the field and during additional training he sustained major injuries, which necessitated his retirement on disability: I think his physical was 50%; his mental injuries (PTSD, psychosis, etc.) were 100%. During his tenure he rose to the rank of Sargent and was awarded so many medals and commendations that multiple forms DD-214 were necessary to list them all.

He received continuing physical and psychiatric treatment at the Augusta, GA VA hospital; they placed he on enough narcotics and psycho-tropic drugs to turn anyone into a zombie. His mental condition was initially rated as temporary. Throughout 2011 he pursued the status of “permanent and unemployable.” During this time he suffered marital and mental health-related troubles daily. Towards the end of his bureaucratic ordeal he made a phone call to the VA national “service” center.

During the (recorded) call he made statements which the VA took as terroristic threats – they alleged he said he was going to the regional VA office in Atlanta to kill the first 3,000 people he encountered using unspecified weaponry. My review of the call lead me to believe he was not sane during the call, that the government’s allegations were a wild, composite stretch of the words used, and that VA’s service isn’t. He was originally arrested on State charges. He was legally carrying a pistol at the time though the arrest was without incident. Damningly, his permanent status was approved the next day. He was released on bail only to be rearrested by the feds, charged with violating 18 USC 875, interstate terror threats (a 5-year maximum felony). Had he specified a “weapon of mass destruction” he would have faced 40 years in prison.

I was appointed as defense counsel and immediately moved for a psychiatric evaluation, thinking this would easily end the case. After several months I received a lengthy report from the MCC New York which exhaustively listed Donny’s chronic mental problems and concluded he was permanently psychotic. However, the good (government) doctor also stated he was obviously sane at the time of the call and competent to stand trial.

We elected to present the matter to a jury, figuring no twelve people could possibly convict a sick man for seeking help from the only source available. We were wrong. The government’s doctor explained the extent of Donny’s condition. The VA representative from the call stated she was not threatened by Donny’s language. The VA stated they did not take any defensive measures when faced with this 9/11 magnitude threat from a man they had trained to expertly kill other human beings. The VA storm-trooper in charge testified he lied under oath to the Grand Jury to obtain the indictment and that he, for no reason, held Donny’s elderly, disabled father at gunpoint AFTER the arrest. Despite all this the twelve morons returned a guilty verdict in less than half an hour. As an aside, at trial the government sandbagged me with thousands of pages of previously withheld discovery and they handed me the afore-referenced pistol LOADED in open court (I cleared it in disbelief).

Donny was sentenced to time served with the probationary condition that he continue his torture at the VA. When I walked into the hearing I was greeted by the AUSA and the VA goon who both suddenly agreed Donny was out of his mind during his “crime.” Donny accepted his sentence and declined both an appeal and a request for a Presidential pardon. I fear his condition will worsen, perhaps with morbid consequences. He is a delightful but pitiful and broken man. I was saddened and broken by this affair.

In modern Amerika Grand Juries, while supposedly independent in their deliberations, are little more than tools of State prosecutors. The defense is usually excluded entirely. The State has the free reign to present any “evidence” no matter how contrived.

The trial that follows (if any) is a showing of prosecutorial imagination and juridical ignorance. Less that 3% of defendants are acquitted under this system. The innocent are convicted and often executed. The lucky escape after years of torment. Life goes on and things are not likely to change any time soon.

I will, shortly, present an alternative, if primitive, alternative to this mad, fixed system of “justice.” Until then, be forewarned and prepared.